Investment Management in European Union

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission issued its call for technical advice to the European Supervisory Authorities on targeted simplification of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

2026-07-01

ESMA launched its consultation on selected Taxonomy KPIs and proposed simplification measures.

2026-08-12 Deadline

ESMA’s consultation period closed.

2026-10-29

ESMA submitted its Final Report and technical advice to the European Commission for consideration in the review of the Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should continue applying the currently effective Taxonomy Regulation and Taxonomy Disclosures Delegated Act until any Commission amendment enters into force.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of the Disclosures Delegated Act and assess any subsequent delegated act, scrutiny period, entry-into-force date and transitional provisions before changing reporting controls.
• Corporate reporting teams may wish to model the effect of an R&D-only mandatory OpEx KPI, including the IAS 38 or national-GAAP population, numerator mapping and interaction with existing materiality reliefs.
• Groups should inventory parent and subsidiary business lines, assess whether secondary businesses could exceed a cumulative 10% consolidated-turnover threshold, and prepare for possible parent-regime and simplified secondary-business templates.
• Asset managers and other financial undertakings should avoid treating the proposed absence of voluntary OpEx reporting as current law and should document the basis for any voluntary Taxonomy metrics under existing disclosure and anti-greenwashing controls.
• Issuers and sustainability-reporting teams should review sustainable-bond, internal-sales, contextual-information and CapEx Type C data processes so they can adapt if the Commission adopts ESMA’s recommendations.
• Reporting governance should track whether any future voluntary alternative metric is reconciled to the mandatory KPI and subject to applicable ESMA Guidelines on Alternative Performance Measures.

What changed

ESMA recommends that the mandatory Article 8 Taxonomy Regulation OpEx KPI focus on non-capitalised R&D expenditure, with the denominator based on expenditure recognised under IAS 38 or relevant national GAAP and the numerator drawn from the existing Annex I categories. It does not recommend introducing a mandatory voluntary OpEx+ metric, and advises against allowing financial undertakings, including asset managers, to use an OpEx KPI voluntarily for Taxonomy disclosures.

Key dates

2026-03-04

The European Commission requested technical advice from the ESAs on the review of Article 8 Taxonomy disclosures.

2026-10-29

The EBA published its final technical advice and submitted its report to the European Commission.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should treat the publication as forward-looking technical advice and should not cease reporting the Fees and Commissions KPI, Trading Book KPI or other existing disclosures unless and until the Commission adopts applicable amendments or transitional measures.
• Firms should map current Taxonomy data lineage, controls, templates and calculation logic against each proposed change so that implementation can be accelerated if the Commission follows the EBA advice.
• Banking groups should assess how parent-level KPIs and material secondary-activity KPIs could affect consolidation methodologies, entity-level data ownership and audit trails.
• Investment firms should inventory fees, commissions and other services currently included in the relevant KPIs, particularly capital-markets-related services, and model the effect of the proposed narrower approach.
• Credit institutions should review Green Asset Ratio template production and identify duplicated or low-value data points that may be removed or harmonised in a future delegated act.
• Firms should monitor the Commission’s review of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/2178, the related Omnibus simplification measures and any final ESA or Commission guidance before updating policies, public disclosures or regulatory reporting systems.
• Legal and regulatory-change teams may wish to engage with the Commission consultation or legislative process and preserve evidence supporting current reporting interpretations during the transition.

What changed

The EBA recommends removing the Fees and Commissions KPI and the Trading Book KPI from Taxonomy disclosure requirements. It proposes simplifying the investment firms’ other-services KPI, including capital-markets-related services, and aligning grandfathering provisions with Regulation (EU) 2023/2631 on European Green Bonds, but only for bonds issued under that Regulation. The EBA advises against introducing the operational expenditure KPI of non-financial undertakings into financial undertakings’ KPI calculations.

Key dates

2026-10-16

ESMA publishes the final revised Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols used between investment firms and their professional clients.

2026-12-07 Deadline

First regulatory milestone: the new allocation and confirmation requirements apply, including mandatory electronic, standardised and machine-readable communication methods, subject to temporary technical-disruption exceptions.

2027-10-11 Deadline

EU securities markets move from T+2 to T+1 settlement; the final phase of the amended settlement-discipline implementation is expected to apply, including settlement-layer process and CSD functionality changes.

Suggested considerations

• Map the firm's transactions, clients, counterparties and settlement venues against CSDR Article 5(2), including the scope for transferable securities traded on an EU trading venue and settling in an EU-registered CSD.
• Assess whether the firm is directly subject to the amended RTS on Settlement Discipline or must implement equivalent controls contractually or operationally for clients and counterparties.
• Complete a gap assessment of allocation and confirmation workflows against the 7 December 2026 requirements for electronic, standardised, international and machine-readable communications.
• Replace manual, oral, email-based or non-machine-readable processes where they are not justified by a temporary technical disruption, and document the disruption, compensating controls, duration and remediation.
• Configure systems to support continuous same-day processing and, taking account of the industry roadmap, completion of allocations and confirmations no later than 23:00 CET on trade date.
• Validate the capture and exchange of critical static data, including place of settlement, BIC, ISIN, MIC and standing settlement instruction data, and establish controls over data quality and versioning.
• Test end-to-end processing with investment firms, professional clients, custodians, brokers, clearing members, CSDs, settlement systems, FX providers and technology vendors rather than testing only internal systems.
• Review client and counterparty agreements, service descriptions, operating memoranda and escalation procedures for the compressed T+1 timetable and cross-border time-zone dependencies.

What changed

The revised ESMA Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols clarify how investment firms and their professional clients must meet the allocation and confirmation requirements in the amended RTS on Settlement Discipline. From 7 December 2026, firms must use electronic, standardised communication channels and international messaging standards, with machine-readable communication required except during temporary technical disruptions.

Key dates

2026-10-12

ESMA published the thematic notes on impact claims and climate transition claims.

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams may wish to inventory all impact and climate transition claims appearing in websites, fund marketing, factsheets, presentations, social media, bond materials and benchmark communications.
• Firms should consider documenting the causal theory behind each positive impact claim, including the investment or financing activity expected to generate the impact and the distinction between intended, expected and achieved outcomes.
• Firms should consider establishing measurable impact indicators, calculation methodologies, baselines, monitoring frequency and governance for reviewing whether claimed outcomes have occurred.
• Firms making transition claims should consider documenting the transition objective, eligibility criteria, milestones, target dates, implementation actions, dependencies on investee companies or other parties, and the process for reporting slippage.
• Marketing and product-governance reviews may wish to require prominent explanation of material assumptions, data gaps, estimates, methodological limitations and uncertainty surrounding forward-looking claims.
• Firms should consider checking that claims are consistent across regulatory disclosures, marketing communications, portfolio holdings, bond frameworks, benchmark methodologies and public sustainability reports.
• Compliance teams may wish to retain evidence supporting each claim and to review whether qualifying information is sufficiently clear, balanced and proximate to the claim rather than hidden in technical documentation.
• Firms should consider assessing whether product names, labels, comparisons, impact figures and transition terminology could create an impression of guaranteed or already-achieved environmental or social outcomes.

What changed

ESMA has provided practical do's and don'ts for non-regulatory communications containing impact or climate transition claims, based on observed market practices. Firms communicating positive impact claims should explain the intended difference, the mechanism through which impact is expected to arise, and how outcomes will be measured. Firms making climate transition claims should describe the transition ambition, implementation approach, assessment of progress, relevant assumptions, data limitations and external dependencies.

Key dates

2027-01-17 Deadline

The current transitional regime for certain third-country CSD notary and central maintenance services is scheduled to expire; ESMA says access should nevertheless not be prevented after this date pending finalisation of the legislative extension.

Suggested considerations

• Firms should identify securities, issuer programmes, custody chains and settlement arrangements that depend directly or indirectly on a third-country CSD, including arrangements involving DTC or other non-EU infrastructure.
• Compliance and operations teams may wish to document reliance on the transitional regime and assess the consequences of a delayed or unsuccessful legislative extension, including possible suspension, removal of securities from a CSD system, settlement disruption and trading interruption.
• Issuers should consider confirming with their third-country CSD, depositary, registrar, paying agent, custodian and trading venues how access is expected to be maintained after 17 January 2027 and what contingency arrangements exist.
• Firms should distinguish ESMA's policy statement from a binding legislative amendment or formal recognition decision and avoid treating it as confirmation that every third-country CSD may provide services indefinitely without satisfying CSDR requirements.
• Legal and regulatory teams may wish to monitor the final text and commencement date of the Market Integration and Supervision Package, together with any European Commission equivalence decisions and ESMA recognition decisions relevant to the CSDs used by the firm.
• Firms should review contractual, disclosure and operational-resilience documentation so that any dependency on third-country CSD access, alternative settlement routes or potential service suspension is appropriately reflected.

What changed

ESMA has provided a supervisory and market-access clarification that EU market participants should not be prevented from accessing the relevant notary and central maintenance services of third-country CSDs solely because the current transitional regime reaches its scheduled end on 17 January 2027. The clarification is intended to apply during the period after that date and until the EU finalises the proposed legislative extension under the Market Integration and Supervision Package.

Key dates

2022

- ESMA’s original peer review identified shortcomings in the supervision of cross-border activities and issued recommendations to strengthen authorisation, supervision, cooperation, and enforcement

September 2025

- ESMA’s 2026 work programme says the follow-up on the peer review of cross-border provision activities of investment firms was expected to be launched around this time

20 July 2026

- ESMA published the follow-up report on the supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms

TBD (est. 2028)

- ESMA indicated in the earlier peer review context that it expected to carry out a follow-up assessment in two years to review improvements, which aligns with a later-stage review cycle

Suggested considerations

• Review cross-border business plans for all passported investment services and ensure they are supported by clear governance, staffing, systems, and client-service arrangements.
• Map all outbound cross-border activities by jurisdiction, client type, product type, and distribution channel so that compliance can identify where supervisory risk is highest.
• Strengthen controls over retail cross-border activity, including marketing, suitability/appropriateness, complaints handling, and local conduct requirements in each host market.
• Prepare to provide supervisors with more granular evidence of how cross-border risks are identified, monitored, escalated, and mitigated.
• Ensure internal reporting can distinguish cross-border revenue, complaints, incidents, and enforcement exposure from domestic business lines.

What changed

• - ESMA reports that NCAs have strengthened authorisation assessments by placing greater emphasis on firms’ cross-border business plans and intentions before granting or maintaining permissions.
• NCAs are increasingly using data-driven and risk-based supervision to monitor cross-border activity and calibrate supervisory attention to the scale, nature, and complexity of the activity.
• NCAs have expanded cooperation and enforcement, including more targeted supervisory actions and reporting of enforcement cases where relevant.
• ESMA expects NCAs with significant outbound cross-border activity to ensure that their supervisory and enforcement approaches are proportionate to the level of risk and business volume.
• The report reinforces that cross-border activity should be treated as a distinct supervisory risk area, not merely as an incidental extension of domestic supervision.

Key dates

10 July 2026

- ESMA publishes the new Q&As on ESGRR, MiCA, and MiFIR secondary market topics

Suggested considerations

• Review ESG ratings policies to ensure consulting, notification, issuer feedback, and factual error review procedures align with ESMA’s latest ESGRR Q&As.
• Update internal case-handling workflows so notifications are screened for the designated contact issue and the two-working-day notification period is calculated consistently.
• Document how your firm distinguishes internal-use ESG ratings or in-house financial services from externally provided ESG ratings activity.
• Reassess whether any second-party opinion business can rely on the ESGRR exemption and record the legal basis for that conclusion.
• Re-map MiCA permissions for custody, administration, transfer, and lending services to confirm the firm is not performing activities outside its authorisation scope.

What changed

• - ESMA added a Q&A clarifying consulting activities to investors or undertakings under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), which is relevant where a ratings provider’s advisory services may...
• ESMA added Q&As on the application and scope of the two working day notification period under ESGRR, indicating that firms must apply the notification clock consistently and in line with ESMA’s...
• ESMA clarified access to the dataset for factual error review under ESGRR, which affects how rated entities or issuers can review underlying data used in ESG ratings processes.
• ESMA added a Q&A on notifications without a designated contact under ESGRR, which is relevant for governance and outreach workflows when a notification lacks an identified recipient.
• ESMA clarified the obligation to consider issuer feedback under ESGRR, reinforcing that issuer comments cannot be ignored and must be handled through a documented review process.

Key dates

10 January 2025

- The FASTER Directive was published in the Official Journal of the EU, establishing the legal basis for ESMA’s market capitalisation mandate

June 2025

- ESMA published a consultation paper on the draft RTS methodology for calculating market capitalisation and the market capitalisation ratio

25 July 2025

- The consultation period for ESMA’s draft RTS methodology closed

October 2025

- ESMA was expected to finalise the RTS and submit them to the European Commission

16 January 2026

- The European Commission issued a final document referring to the FASTER framework and its threshold mechanics

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams should map whether any serviced Member State may approach or exceed the 1.5% threshold over a rolling four-year period and flag jurisdictions that could trigger special withholding tax relief consequences.
• Tax operations teams should align withholding tax relief workflows with the ESMA-published ratios so that jurisdictional eligibility assessments use the current official figures.
• Data and controls teams should document the calculation source, methodology, and reconciliation process for any internal use of ESMA market capitalisation data.
• Investment firms and intermediaries should review client-facing tax-relief processes to ensure they can respond to changes in Member State status under FASTER.
• Market-data and regulatory-reporting teams should prepare for annual updates by building a recurring review process around each ESMA publication cycle.

What changed

• - ESMA has started publishing annual market capitalisation figures and market capitalisation ratios for each EU Member State under its FASTER Directive mandate.
• The published figures are based on a harmonised methodology developed by ESMA in technical standards, using transaction data reported under MiFIR.
• Market capitalisation is calculated from shares admitted to trading on a regulated market or multilateral trading facility, with aggregation at the level of the issuer’s legal address in the relevant...
• The market capitalisation ratio is calculated as the Member State’s market capitalisation divided by the total market capitalisation of all Member States on the same date, expressed as a percentage.
• Member States whose market size exceeds 1.5% of total EU market capitalisation for four consecutive years are subject to specific withholding tax relief-related requirements.

Key dates

Q4 2025

- ESMA conducted a public consultation on the draft RTS

November 2025

- ESMA held a public hearing on the draft RTS

05 January 2026

- The consultation period referenced in ESMA’s prior consultation paper closed

08 July 2026

- ESMA published the Final Report on the RTS concerning CCP admission criteria elements

TBD (post

08 July 2026); - The RTS will be submitted to the European Commission for endorsement

Suggested considerations

• CCPs should review their current admission criteria to ensure they are explicitly tied to a documented assessment of risks posed by each clearing member type.
• CCPs should update membership rulebooks and onboarding procedures to reflect the RTS requirement to consider financial resources, operational capacity, and liquidity support arrangements.
• CCPs should build or refine documented methodologies for assessing NFC clearing members’ ability to meet margin and default fund obligations.
• CCPs should ensure sponsored membership frameworks clearly define how the sponsor’s support, the sponsored member’s profile, and relevant risk controls are assessed for eligibility purposes.
• CCPs should prepare to publish clear admission criteria, application steps, timelines, required documentation, and explanations for any category-specific requirements.

What changed

• - CCPs must base admission criteria on a comprehensive risk assessment of the risks posed by clearing members and ensure the criteria reflect those risks.
• CCPs must consider whether clearing members have sufficient financial resources to meet obligations arising from participation in the CCP.
• CCPs must assess whether clearing members have access to reliable credit, liquidity, and foreign exchange facilities commensurate with the scale and nature of their clearing activity.
• CCPs must examine the clearing member’s operational capacity to meet CCP obligations, including readiness to support clearing operations and margin obligations.
• CCPs must take account of the client clearing activity of a clearing member, including the relative importance of that activity and the member’s ability to meet margin requirements if clients default.

Key dates

Since July 2011

– ESMA has been responsible for the supervision and registration of credit rating agencies in the EU under the CRA Regulation, including enforcement actions for breaches

TBD (post‑02 July 2026)

– Potential appeal window for Moody’s Germany to bring the case before the Board of Appeal of the European Supervisory Authorities; any appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect, though suspension can be granted by the Board of Appeal on request

02 July 2026

– ESMA Board of Supervisors adopts supervisory measures and imposes fines on Moody’s Deutschland GmbH for four negligent breaches of the CRA Regulation, and publishes a public notice and press release

Suggested considerations

• Conduct a comprehensive review of all ESMA‑related reporting processes to ensure that data submitted to ESMA (including rating information, historical performance data, rating changes, and other CRA regulatory reports) is complete, accurate, and kept up‑to‑date at all times.
• Map and document all responsibilities for ESMA reporting within the CRA group, ensuring that where one entity reports on behalf of others, the allocation of roles, ownership of data, and validation steps is explicitly defined, approved, and regularly reviewed.
• Perform a gap analysis of existing regulatory reporting policies, procedures, and internal control mechanisms against CRA Regulation requirements and ESMA supervisory expectations, and update documentation to remove ambiguities and outdated provisions.
• Implement or strengthen data validation and reconciliation controls over submissions to the European Rating Platform and ESMA’s central repositories, including automated checks for missing ratings, non‑withdrawn ratings, incorrect rating actions, and inconsistencies in historical performance data.
• Establish a formal governance process for changes to regulatory reporting frameworks, ensuring regular review, independent challenge by compliance or risk functions, and clear escalation routes for identified data quality issues or control failures.

What changed

• - ESMA has clarified, through enforcement, that CRAs must ensure complete, accurate and up‑to‑date data is reported to ESMA across all relevant CRA reporting channels (including the European Rating...
• ESMA has reinforced that errors limited to regulatory reporting data (and not directly affecting published ratings) can still constitute material breaches of the CRA Regulation, demonstrating that...
• ESMA has indicated that group reporting arrangements (where one CRA entity reports on behalf of others in the group) must have clear documentation of responsibilities, validation processes, and...
• ESMA has emphasized that regulatory reporting frameworks must include robust policies, procedures and internal control mechanisms, and that deficiencies in these frameworks constitute distinct...
• ESMA has signalled that negligence, rather than intentional misconduct, is sufficient to trigger significant fines under the CRA Regulation, and that both aggravating and mitigating factors will be...

Key dates

17 January 2025

– DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) applies, and financial entities become obliged to report major ICT‑related incidents to their competent authority once classification thresholds are met

Annual (from 2026 onwards) Deadline

– Under Article 22(2) DORA, the ESAs must issue a yearly report covering number, nature, impact, remedial actions and costs of major ICT‑related incidents; the publication in early June 2026 is the first such report and sets the expectation for future annual cycles

Suggested considerations

• Review and, where necessary, recalibrate internal incident classification criteria against the DORA definition of “ICT‑related incident” and “major ICT‑related incident”, ensuring consistency with applicable RTS on classification and materiality thresholds.
• Validate that your firm’s incident management and escalation processes can identify, assess and classify incidents “without undue delay” and trigger major‑incident reporting within the prescribed timelines (initial, intermediate and final reports).
• Conduct a gap analysis of cross‑border incident handling, ensuring that governance, communication and coordination arrangements adequately address incidents affecting multiple Member States or shared cross‑border infrastructures.
• Strengthen third‑party and outsourcing risk management by mapping critical and important functions to their supporting ICT service providers, and ensuring contracts, SLAs and incident‑response clauses support DORA reporting and cooperation obligations.
• Test and, if needed, enhance incident response runbooks to ensure close coordination with ICT service providers during incident containment, remediation and recovery, including clear roles for data provision required for regulatory reporting.

What changed

• - The ESAs have operationalised Article 22(2) DORA by issuing the first annual overview of major ICT‑related incidents, confirming that yearly ESA‑level aggregation and analysis of incident data is...
• Incident reporting under DORA is now demonstrably harmonised and centralised, with major ICT‑related incidents being notified to all competent authorities involved and then aggregated by the ESAs for...
• The report confirms that cross‑border incidents are prevalent (around one third of major incidents), reinforcing that the “borderless and interconnected” nature of ICT risk is a key supervisory...
• System failures and external events, rather than pure cyber‑attacks, are identified as the main drivers of major incidents, placing regulatory emphasis on ICT change management, resilience of core...
• The ESAs highlight third‑party and outsourcing risk as a core theme, stressing the need for robust oversight of ICT service providers and close coordination with them during incident response and...

Key dates

2025 (completed) Deadline

– ESMA and NCAs conduct the 2025 Common Supervisory Action on compliance and internal audit functions of fund managers, establishing benchmarks for good and poor practices in the funds sector

2025 (completed)

– First year of enforcement of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS) and application of ESMA Guidelines on Enforcement of Sustainability Information for in‑scope issuers’ 2025 reporting

2025 (throughout year)

– ESMA and NCAs carry out corporate reporting enforcement across the EEA, including financial, sustainability and digital (ESEF) reporting, feeding into ESMA’s 2025 corporate reporting enforcement report

Q2 2026

– ESMA launches the sixth CCP stress test exercise, with follow‑up supervisory actions by ESMA and NCAs expected after results are analysed

Q2 2026

– ESMA publishes reporting templates and instructions for the EMIR 3 Active Account Requirement, enabling firms and CCPs to begin design and implementation work ahead of EMIR 3 go‑live

Suggested considerations

• Map your firm’s current EMIR, MiFIR and fund reporting obligations against ESMA’s stated objective of simplifying EU reporting frameworks and begin scenario‑planning for changes to templates, data models and validation rules.
• For CCPs and clearing members, review participation in the sixth ESMA CCP stress test, ensure timely and accurate data delivery, and assess internal implications of potential stress test findings for risk management frameworks.
• CCPs should compare existing recovery and resolution plans and playbooks against ESMA’s new guidance on effective use of resolution tools, updating governance, triggers, communications and coordination arrangements with resolution authorities.
• Counterparties and CCPs in scope of EMIR 3 should identify products and business lines affected by the Active Account Requirement and begin implementing systems, processes and controls to populate ESMA’s reporting templates and instructions.
• Investment firms active in equity markets should respond to ESMA’s call for evidence on European equity market structure where appropriate, and internally assess potential impacts on best execution, order routing, internalisation and transparency obligations.

What changed

• - ESMA is advancing the simplification of EU reporting frameworks for funds and transaction reporting, indicating upcoming changes to reporting templates, data fields and/or reporting channels under...
• ESMA has launched its sixth EU‑wide stress test exercise for Central Counterparties (CCPs), expanding supervisory scrutiny of CCP risk management, default management processes and resilience to...
• ESMA has published guidance on the effective use of resolution tools in CCP crisis planning, clarifying expectations for CCP resolution planning, coordination with resolution authorities and use of...
• ESMA has issued reporting templates and instructions for the Active Account Requirement under EMIR 3, operationalising new obligations for counterparties and CCPs to maintain and report active...
• ESMA has published a call for evidence on the structure of European equity markets, opening a policy workstream that may lead to changes in market structure, transparency, and best execution...

Key dates

2025 (exact dates TBD)

– ESMA’s Call for Evidence on streamlining reporting across EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR is scheduled, with stakeholders expected to provide input on duplication removal and “report once” options

18 June 2026

– ESMA will host a webinar to present the main findings of the annual report on the quality and use of regulatory data

Suggested considerations

• Map all existing regulatory reporting obligations across EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD, MMFR, Prospectus and DORA ICT‑incident reporting, and document the underlying data sources, systems and ownership for each regime.
• Review and enhance data quality controls for EMIR, SFTR and MiFIR reporting, including validation rules, completeness checks, reconciliations, pairing and matching processes, and governance around Unique Transaction Identifiers and counterparty data.
• Perform a gap analysis of Prospectus reporting and DORA ICT‑incident reporting processes against ESMA’s emerging cross‑regime data quality expectations and ensure they are covered in the firm’s enterprise data governance framework.
• Establish or update a centralised regulatory data governance framework that explicitly covers cross‑regime consistency (for example, trade and position data alignment between EMIR, SFTR and MiFIR) and defines clear accountability at senior management level.
• Engage with internal IT and reporting teams to identify where a future “report once” model could be supported technically, including harmonised reference data, common identifiers and golden‑source transaction and position records.

What changed

• - ESMA confirms measurable data quality improvements across EMIR, SFTR, MiFIR, AIFMD and MMFR regulatory datasets, indicating that regulators now consider these data sufficiently reliable for...
• ESMA highlights extensive and growing supervisory use of regulatory data by ESMA and NCAs for investor protection, financial stability, orderly markets and market integrity, increasing the...
• The scope of the annual data quality and use report is expanded to include Prospectus reporting obligations, bringing prospectus‑related data formally into ESMA’s cross‑regime data quality scrutiny.
• The report scope is also expanded to include ICT‑related incident reporting under the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), signaling that operational resilience incident data will be monitored...
• ESMA has launched a 2025 Call for Evidence on streamlining reporting across EMIR, MiFIR and SFTR, including options to remove duplications and apply a “report once” approach, which will likely lead...

Key dates

03 January 2025

– ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR) enters into force, starting the formal legislative timeline and triggering preparatory obligations for future ESG rating providers

02 July 2026

– ESGRR applies and the main substantive requirements become effective; from this date entities have one month to notify ESMA of their intention to apply for authorisation or registration as ESG rating providers

Suggested considerations

• Map all existing and planned ESG rating products against ESMA’s clarified concept of a “defined ranking system” and update methodologies, scales, and disclosures to ensure they meet ESGRR and Q&A expectations.
• For ESG rating providers operating before 02 July 2026, develop and execute a documented transitional compliance plan that aligns governance, methodologies, data controls and transparency with ESGRR, ensuring timely notification to ESMA within one month from 02 July 2026.
• For entities intending to launch ESG rating activities after ESGRR entry into force, prepare and submit complete authorisation or registration files to ESMA before commencing rating activity, incorporating the Q&A guidance on initial registration requirements.
• Establish or enhance a formal process to identify, assess and record “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers, and implement controls to ensure ESMA is notified within required timelines before or immediately after such changes, as specified in the Q&A.
• Review and update MAR compliance frameworks, with particular focus on market soundings procedures, to incorporate ESMA’s expectations on the scope, independence, and documentation of the annually conducted audit required under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957.

What changed

• - ESMA clarifies what constitutes a “defined ranking system” under the EU ESG Ratings Regulation (ESGRR), including when rating scales, score bands or league tables will be regarded as a ranking...
• ESMA sets out transitional provisions for existing ESG rating providers active before ESGRR application, detailing conditions and timelines under which they may continue operating while completing...
• ESMA explains how ESG rating providers established after the ESGRR date of entry into force must comply, including the need to obtain authorisation/registration before commencing activity in the EU...
• ESMA defines what qualifies as “material changes to registration information” for ESG rating providers under ESGRR, indicating the types of changes (e.g.
• Under MAR and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/957, ESMA clarifies expectations regarding the annually conducted audit of market soundings arrangements, including scope, independence of the...

Key dates

07 July 2026 Deadline

– Deadline stated by ESMA for stakeholders to submit consultation feedback on the revised guidelines

October 2026

– ESMA expects to publish its final report, including updated and finalised guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols

07 December 2026

– Expected application date of the revised ESMA Guidelines on allocations and confirmations, aligned with the anticipated application of the amended CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline requirements for allocations and confirmations

11 October 2027 Deadline

– EU transition date to a T+1 settlement cycle, when trades in in‑scope instruments must settle one business day after the trade date and firms must fully operate under the new T+1‑aligned post‑trade framework

Suggested considerations

• Map all current allocation and confirmation workflows and identify any use of non‑electronic, non‑standardised or non‑machine‑readable communication (including email attachments, faxes, PDFs, and oral instructions).
• Develop and execute a remediation plan to replace manual or oral allocation and confirmation processes with fully electronic, machine‑readable workflows using recognised international messaging standards.
• Review and update front‑to‑back trade processing systems (OMS, EMS, middle‑office, back‑office, matching engines) to ensure they can generate, receive and process standardised electronic allocation and confirmation messages within same‑day T+1‑compatible timelines.
• Engage with CSDs, custodians, brokers, counterparties and third‑party vendors to confirm their roadmap and readiness for the mandated electronic standards and to align implementation timelines to the 7 December 2026 application date.
• Update contractual documentation with clients and counterparties (including terms of business and service level agreements) to incorporate obligations for electronic, standardised, machine‑readable allocations and confirmations and to remove reliance on manual methods except as contingency.

What changed

• - ESMA proposes revised Guidelines on standardised procedures and messaging protocols for allocations and confirmations under CSDR Settlement Discipline, specifically to support the transition to a...
• The guidelines will mandate the use of electronic, standardised communication channels for post‑trade allocations and confirmations, moving away from mixed paper / manual practice to fully electronic...
• Firms will be required to use international messaging standards (e.g. ISO‑based protocols) for post‑trade communication, to ensure interoperability and faster straight‑through processing across EU...
• The guidelines remove references to non‑electronic and non‑machine‑readable methods, including oral allocations and confirmations, except where there is a temporary technical disruption that prevents...
• The revisions are explicitly aligned with ESMA’s Final Report on Amendments to the CSDR RTS on Settlement Discipline, which introduce same‑day timing for allocations and machine‑readable formats for...

Key dates

Q2 2026

- ESMA reviews responses to assess potential regulatory adjustments under CRA Regulation

31 May 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting evidence-based responses, including quantitative data and market examples, via ESMA's online consultation form in docx format

Suggested considerations

• Review the full Call for Evidence document and annexes for specific questions on restricted subscription (Annex I) and private credit ratings (Annex II).
• Prepare and submit evidence-based responses addressing key areas: use cases/benefits vs. public ratings, contracting/distribution parties, analytical/governance comparability, transparency impacts, risks/mitigations, and multi-CRA practices.
• Provide quantitative data, concrete examples, and rationale; indicate specific questions and alternatives considered.
• Submit online by 31 May 2026 using the docx reply form; note responses may be published unless confidentiality requested.

What changed

There are no immediate regulatory changes; this is a fact-finding call for evidence to assess whether adjustments to the CRA Regulation are needed. ESMA seeks views on definitions (e.g., restricted subscription ratings as selectively distributed to limited subscribers with economic interest; private ratings excluded from CRA scope if not distributed to >150 persons), production processes, governance comparability to public ratings, distribution risks, and market needs. Potential future outcomes include enhanced clarity on CRA Regulation application, but none are confirmed yet.

Key dates

27 February 2026

Publication of annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments

10 April 2026

Release of first 2026 TRV report and newsletter; .

15 April 2026

Public hearing on EBA-ESMA joint guidelines on suitability of management body and key function holders

20 April 2026 Deadline

Consultation deadline on regulatory standards for post-trade risk reduction services under EMIR 3

29 April 2026

Consultation on MAR Guidelines on delay in disclosure of inside information

Suggested considerations

• Review and implement transparency calculations: Adjust trading systems and disclosures for equity/equity-like instruments per 27 February 2026 publication.
• Respond to consultations: Submit feedback on suitability (by 25 May 2026), EMIR 3 (20 April), MAR delays (29 April), CCP collateral (30 April); attend 15 April hearing.
• Assess TRV risks: Conduct internal risk reviews aligning with high-risk market warnings; update policies on retail investor journeys and fund costs.[User Query]
• Update compliance programs: Incorporate MiFID II/MiFIR simplification proposals, Listing Act statement, market abuse guidelines, EMIR 3, sustainability reporting, and new Q&As.[User Query]
• Monitor enforcement: Review supervisory actions for peer benchmarks (e.g., similar to prior MFSA review).

What changed

• The newsletter highlights no immediate binding rules but flags forthcoming or proposed changes via publications:
• Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities (TRV) Report 2026: Identifies high-risk EU financial markets, urging heightened risk monitoring.[User Query]
• Annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments: Updates pre- and post-trade transparency thresholds, published 27 February 2026.[User Query]
• Joint EBA-ESMA consultation on revised suitability assessment: Proposes updates to requirements for banks and investment firms on assessing client knowledge and needs under MiFID II.[User Query]
• ESMA proposals to simplify MiFID II/MiFIR obligations on market data: Aims to streamline reporting and data access burdens.[User Query]

Key dates

2022

2024; - Period during which BofA Securities Europe SA committed the breach across six consecutive reporting periods

27 March 2026

- ECB penalty announcement and effective date

Ongoing Deadline

- Bank has the right to challenge the decision before the Court of Justice of the European Union (no statutory deadline specified, but typically within 2 months of notification)

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate (for all firms with internal models):
• *Audit Internal Models Scope: Conduct comprehensive review of all asset classes currently included in internal models approaches to confirm supervisory permission exists for each category
• *Verify Sovereign Bond Derivatives Treatment: Specifically validate that all sovereign bond options, forwards, and other derivatives are explicitly covered by supervisory approval documentation
• *Reconcile RWA Calculations: Recalculate historical RWAs (at minimum for the past 3-5 years) to identify any unauthorized inclusions and assess whether prior reporting was accurate
• *Strengthen Internal Controls: Implement automated controls to prevent unauthorized asset classes from being included in model calculations, with documented supervisory permission matrices

What changed

• This enforcement action does not introduce new regulatory requirements but rather clarifies existing obligations:
• Internal Models Scope Limitation: Banks must strictly adhere to supervisory permissions when applying internal models approaches; unauthorized asset classes cannot be included regardless of...
• Risk-Weighted Asset Accuracy: RWA calculations must reflect actual supervisory permissions, not theoretical modeling capabilities
• Capital Ratio Integrity: Misreporting of RWAs directly affects CET1 ratios and capital adequacy disclosures, which are fundamental to regulatory reporting
• Intentionality Standard: The ECB's classification of this breach as "intentional" (rather than negligent) indicates that awareness of supervisory limitations combined with non-compliance triggers...

Key dates

15 April 2026, 14:00

15:30; - Public hearing on joint guidelines

15 April 2026, 15:30

16:30; - Public hearing on EBA RTS

25 May 2026 Deadline

- Deadline for submitting comments on joint guidelines and EBA RTS

Post

25 May 2026; - EBA publishes all contributions (unless requested otherwise)

TBD (post

consultation); - Revised guidelines enter into force, repealing 2021 guidelines

Suggested considerations

• Assess current suitability processes against new requirements (e.g., ex-ante applications, AML/CFT checks, third-country branch specs) and prepare for mandatory assessments of additional roles like CFOs.
• For large institutions, evaluate EBA RTS on documentation and align internal templates (e.g., suitability questionnaires, CVs).
• Participate in public hearings on 15 April 2026 if relevant.
• Plan governance updates, including ongoing monitoring of collective/individual suitability and corrective measures.

What changed

• - Incorporation of revised CRD requirements for large institutions, including ex-ante applications where authorities perform ex-post assessments, and mandatory suitability assessments for key roles...
• Expanded application to CRD-covered entities and MiFID II investment firms, with further specifications for third-country branches.
• Strengthened integration with AML/CFT framework, providing guidance on identifying reasonable grounds to suspect money laundering or terrorist financing risks during assessments.
• Introduction of targeted simplifications to streamline processes, reduce administrative burdens, and offer greater flexibility/clarity for institutions and supervisors.
• Parallel EBA consultation on RTS specifying standardized documentation (e.g., suitability questionnaires, CVs, internal assessments) for large institutions to ensure consistent submissions.

Key dates

26 February 2026

- AAR RTS enter into force (20 days after Official Journal publication on 6 February 2026)

31 July 2026 Deadline

- First EMIR 3 representativeness reporting deadline

31 January 2027 Deadline

- First AAR compliance report due

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate (by 26 February 2026):
• Review the ESMA supervisory briefing and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/305 in detail
• Assess whether your firm meets the €6 billion notional clearing volume outstanding threshold triggering AAR obligations
• Identify internal teams responsible for AAR compliance (trading, operations, compliance, reporting)
• *Short-term (by 31 July 2026):

What changed

The supervisory briefing addresses three core compliance areas: Identifying Most Relevant Subcategories: Counterparties must continuously identify the five most relevant subcategories for each class of derivatives over each reference period, based on their trading activity. The guidance clarifies that the number of subcategories to select equals the maximum number available for that derivative class. Representativeness Compliance Standard: Counterparties must clear, on an annual average basis, at least five trades in each of the most relevant subcategories per class of derivative contracts...

Key dates

February 17, 2026

- ESMA Board of Supervisors adopts decision

February 19, 2026

- ESMA publishes supplementary deferrals list

March 2, 2026

- Original implementation date (subsequently extended)

May 4, 2026

- **Effective date for supplementary deferrals application**

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate Compliance Preparation (by May 4, 2026)
• *System Configuration: Trading venues and investment firms must update post-trade reporting systems to implement volume omission deferrals for Group 1, Category 1 sovereign bonds, with automated end-of-day publication triggers.
• *Instrument Classification: Establish processes to correctly identify which sovereign bonds qualify as Group 1, Category 1 under Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/583 (RTS 2), referencing Table 2.6 of Annex III.
• *APA Coordination: Approved Publication Arrangements must configure deferral management services to apply volume omission rules consistently across all reporting firms, with fallback procedures for system failures.
• *Policy Documentation: Update post-trade transparency policies, procedures, and client disclosures to reflect the new deferral regime and explain the timing of volume publication.

What changed

Scope of Supplementary Deferrals The decision permits volume omission deferrals for sovereign bonds classified as Group 1, Category 1 instruments (medium-size, liquid instruments) under MiFIR's post-trade transparency framework. Market operators and investment firms may defer publication of transaction volumes until end-of-trading-day, rather than the standard 15-minute deferral period. Regulatory Rationale ESMA determined that these deferrals are necessary to account for specific characteristics of sovereign bond markets, particularly protecting market liquidity and ensuring orderly price...

Key dates

Summer 2026

- European Commission aims to adopt revised ESRS into a delegated act, considering ESMA, EBA, EIOPA, ECB opinions

FY 2029 (reporting in 2030)

- End of certain temporary reliefs on quantitative information for anticipated financial effects (if ESMA recommendations adopted)

First years post

adoption (2026+); - Learning curve period with pragmatic NCAs supervision and flexibility in examinations

Suggested considerations

• Monitor Commission process: Track final delegated act by summer 2026, incorporating ESMA/EBA/EIOPA/ECB opinions; review full ESMA opinion PDF for detailed recommendations.
• Assess current reporting: Evaluate use of permanent/temporary reliefs (e.g., #3/#4 on quantitative data, #9/#11 on metrics) and prepare for time limits; refine transition plans for emissions/targets.
• Enhance governance disclosures: Strengthen reporting on sustainability competences in management/supervisory bodies and financial resources for actions.
• Review subsidiary exemptions: Check materiality exclusions for sustainability risks/opportunities in consolidated statements.
• Prepare for supervision: Leverage NCAs flexibility during transition; integrate into data governance and risk systems per CSRD implementation trends.

What changed

• The draft revised ESRS introduce simplifications such as improved readability, language, format, reduced volume of requirements, and a focus on material matters.
• Introduce time limits to certain permanent reliefs (e.g., reliefs #3, #4, #9, #11 on quantitative information for anticipated financial effects until FY 2029, and metrics).
• Refine requirements on transition plans (e.g., consistent disclosure of absolute financed emissions and contextual information).
• Strengthen reporting on sustainability competences of administrative, management, and supervisory bodies.
• Enhance transparency on financial resources allocated to sustainability actions.

Key dates

1 July 2025

- Publication of ESMA's first thematic note on ESG credentials (to be read in combination)

14 January 2026

- Publication date of the thematic note on ESG strategies (second in series)

Suggested considerations

• Review and update all non-regulatory ESG communications (marketing, websites, presentations, DDQs, PPMs) against the four principles and do's/don'ts.
• Define and clearly explain ESG integration/exclusions (e.g., processes, criteria, thresholds, portfolio impact, materiality).
• Ensure consistency across channels, substantiate claims with accessible evidence, and avoid vagueness or overstatements.
• Train compliance/marketing teams; monitor for updates as further thematic notes may follow.
• Cross-reference with first note and regulations like SFDR, Cross-Border Distribution Regulation.

What changed

• This is not a formal regulatory change but supervisory guidance reinforcing four principles for non-regulatory communications (e.g., marketing materials, websites, investor presentations, voluntary...
• Accurate: Claims must fairly represent sustainability profiles without exaggeration, falsehoods, omissions, cherry-picking, vagueness, or misleading ESG terminology/imagery.
• Accessible: Information must be easy to understand and navigate, with layered substantiation in electronic formats for retail materials.
• Substantiated: Backed by clear reasoning, facts, processes, and methodologies; disclose data limitations and comparison bases.
• Up to date: Reflect current data, with timely disclosure of material changes and analysis dates. Practical do's/don'ts include explaining ESG processes in plain language, disclosing portfolio...

Key dates

11 February 2026 Deadline

– Deadline for entities to register and submit requests to participate in the selection procedure

Early July 2026

– ESMA to adopt reasoned decision on selected applicant

1 September 2026

– Mandatory use of new OTC derivatives identifying reference data (Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/1003)

1 March 2027

– Single application date for all derivatives-related changes: amendments to RTS 2, Package Order RTS, and OTC derivatives CTP data requirements

Suggested considerations

• *For prospective CTP applicants:
• *For trading venues and data contributors:
• trade OTC derivatives data to the selected CTP from 1 March 2027
• minute maximum delay for real-time dissemination
• *For market participants:

What changed

• The regulatory framework introduces several substantive requirements:
• CTP Mandate: The selected provider will consolidate post-trade data from trading venues and other data contributors into a unified electronic stream, enabling market participants to access accurate,...
• Data Scope: The CTP will collect and disseminate OTC derivatives data in accordance with ESMA's Final Report on transparency for derivatives, with specific technical standards governing pre- and...
• Technical Standards: ESMA has finalized regulatory technical standards (RTS) prescribing data quality requirements for CTPs and data contributors.
• Implementation Date: All derivatives-related changes, including amendments to RTS 2 (derivatives transparency) and the OTC derivatives CTP data requirements, are scheduled for 1 March 2027.

Key dates

4 December 2025

- European Commission publishes market integration legislative package; legislative process expected to take at least one year

23 December 2025

- Newsletter publication date

Suggested considerations

• Review the final non-equity transparency RTS and assess impacts on trading and reporting systems for compliance by any upcoming application dates (not specified).
• Evaluate MiFID II conflicts of interest policies in preparation for the CSA; conduct internal audits and enhance training/staff attestations on identification and mitigation.
• Monitor equity CTP rollout for changes to post-trade data access and costs; update vendor contracts if applicable.
• For DORA-impacted firms, map exposures to designated critical ICT providers and strengthen due diligence, contractual clauses, and exit strategies.
• Asset managers: Audit fund names against guidelines and review UCITS distribution practices for cost transparency.

What changed

• - ESMA welcomes the European Commission's 4 December 2025 legislative package on market integration, emphasizing robust governance and market infrastructure for deeper EU capital markets.
• Announcement of selected applicant for the equity consolidated tape provider (CTP), advancing MiFIR transparency for equity markets by improving post-trade data consolidation and access.
• Publication of ESMA's final report on Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) for non-equity transparency, clarifying pre- and post-trade transparency rules for bonds, derivatives, and other non-equity...
• Launch of a Common Supervisory Action (CSA) on MiFID II conflicts of interest requirements to promote supervisory convergence and governance across Member States.
• European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs) designate critical ICT third-party providers under DORA, enhancing oversight of key outsourcing risks.

Key dates

30 June 2025

- ESMA's final report on prospectus ESG disclosure requirements became effective (referenced in search results as June 6, 2025 publication date)

22 September 2025

- ESMA published updated consolidated Q&A on SFDR and Level 2 Regulation with new PAI disclosure guidance

17 October 2025

- ESMA updated MiCAR Q&As on execution service classification

19 December 2025

- ESMA published new Q&As across multiple regulatory domains

Suggested considerations

• *Immediate (0-30 days):
• *Short-term (1-3 months):
• level information
• advertised securities per Annex 21 requirements

What changed

• The December 19, 2025 Q&A publication covers several regulatory domains:
• AIFMD Exclusion Criteria: New guidance on the UNGC/OECD Guidelines exclusion (Q&A 2734), clarifying when alternative investment fund managers must apply exclusion-related requirements
• ESG Rating Activities: Updated Q&As addressing regulatory requirements for ESG rating providers, including clarification on group-affiliated small ESG rating activities
• Sustainable Finance: Continued development of guidance under SFDR and related sustainability disclosure frameworks
• Digital Finance and Innovation: Guidance supporting implementation of digital finance rules